Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 7)

Comments

Extraordinary turn of events concerning the gentleman currently in the news. Normally he would be advising celebs how to best handle such a calamitous series of headlines and now he's the subject of said headlines himself.....it's a strange old world.

I'm guessing the apology was buried away on page 10? :rolleyes: I heard one of the recommendations of the Levenson report includes making such apologies much more prominent in newspapers, which is a good thing.

They should make the apology the same size and position as the original false article.

They should make the apology the same size and position as the original false article.

I am of the same opinion and if a story took the front page and more inside then they shoudld devote the same amount to the apology, and if that means just pages of the words "we are sorry" so be it, it may make them think tiwice before printing speculation and at times completely false information just to sensationalise and get readers.

The only time when a smaller apology (not having to take the same space) on the front page may be ok is when they it could not be expected for any reasonable person to have thought differently with the information at hand

Are we allowed to name "he who won't be named" yet? As much as I dislike people's names being banded about the media when we're supposed to presume innocence before guilt, DS is awful if they let forum member's name some of the accused but not others. How is that right in any decent society?

Also, can I apologise for my comments yesterday? In the clear light of day I realise I was being really ignorant and unfairly judgemental towards the victims, which I now feel rather embarrassed about. Sorry to anyone I might have offended.

If you mean the person named in the immediately preceding post to yours, obviously we can. What we can't do is discuss the case, given that such discussions almost immediately stray into contempt of court and/or libel.

Are we allowed to name "he who won't be named" yet? As much as I dislike people's names being banded about the media when we're supposed to presume innocence before guilt, DS is awful if they let forum member's name some of the accused but not others. How is that right in any decent society?

Also, can I apologise for my comments yesterday? In the clear light of day I realise I was being really ignorant and unfairly judgemental towards the victims, which I now feel rather embarrassed about. Sorry to anyone I might have offended.

Now is the time for him to speak out LOUDLY naming and shaming those he claims he's covered up for. They should all go down together if the evidence so exists.

The names are already out there but the Digital Spy moderation would not have it. All I will say is that when you have a hotel that was visited by sex abusers and then some showbiz celebs and big-time politicians, the the latter groups deserved to at least be investigated.

Not one arrest. Not a whimper of an investigation by either police or media.

So why are they only going after male celebrities of certain ages? What about the politicians and royals? There will doubtless be some with scandals to their names, it's the way of these things.

In general, it seems like the Savile report was the end of it. We all want the true extent of the Savile web to be exposed. But it seems there is no intention of that. Yewtree resources are being directed to cases not related to Savile. It's all very disappointing.